cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sylvain Wallez <>
Subject Re: [RT] ComponentizedProcessor (was RE: Migrating TreeProcessor to Fortress)
Date Tue, 11 Nov 2003 21:20:11 GMT
Tony Collen wrote:

> Sylvain Wallez wrote:
>> 3/ View inheritance
>> Views are nothing more than virtual serializers, with the main 
>> difference that their hint is defined at runtime by the "cocoon-view" 
>> parameter. And since these are components, lookup goes up to the 
>> parent sitemap if a view is not declared in a given sitemap, thus 
>> providing inheritance.
> Is this really needed, or desirable?  Views are not currently 
> inherited, and making them inherited may break something that people 
> already have setup.  Were views made uninheritable on purpose?
> Consider an environment where you have subsitemaps delegated out for 
> separate departments or people to use.  If you have some views in the 
> main sitemap, I wouldn't neccesarily want them propagating down to 
> subsitemaps.
> Would an empty <map:views/> tag would override any views in a sitemap?

Nope. You will only define no local views, meaning it will have no 
effect of any kind.

> But maybe this isn't really a problem, if you have everything in a 
> subsitemap, even your "main" one, then you wouldn't have to worry. 
> Likewise, just declare no components in the supersitemap and you're 
> good to go.

That's a solution. Another one may be to take advantage of the 
public/private component managers I suggested. We could declare 
"private" views and resources that would be only visible in the current 
sitemap. But I'm not sure we need this extra semantic complexity.


Sylvain Wallez                                  Anyware Technologies 
{ XML, Java, Cocoon, OpenSource }*{ Training, Consulting, Projects }
Orixo, the opensource XML business alliance  -

View raw message